The Washington State Democrats are asking for their money back -- plus 12% interest:
But the Secretary of State’s office only wants to pay the party about 2 percent interest on the $730,000 the party deposited with the office to initiate the unprecedented statewide hand recount that delivered the 2004 governors election for Christine Gregoire.Even if they simply got their money back, it would have been the best $730,000 they never spent. But that's not enough. They also want the taxpayers to pay them for the pleasure of having been forced into a fraudulent recount? Sheesh. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at June 09, 2005 12:38 AM | Email This
Since their money was deposited at a modest interest rate in an escrow savings account, then equity and fairness means the Democrats will get that 2% or whatever. It would be unfair to let the state keep the (rather small amount of)interest earned on this money.
Maybe the Dems should sue over this matter. They will have to pay their own attorney fees. It might cost them more than the $30,000 they are demanding in interest.
Posted by: Richard Pope on June 9, 2005 12:48 AMI feel like people are starting to buy the idea that it's the governments money, not ours. I'm the one going to work every day, not because I was elected into the position, but because I have the skills needed to do what I do. These elected officials are eating away my right to make and spend money the way I choose. Neither Republicans nor Libertarians seem to be gaining any ground in this up-hill battle.
Perhaps someone can change the tempo in this state, but I'm already feeling like the best option is to just get out of this state as fast as I can. Maybe I'm just being cynical.
On a slightly more positive note, I really enjoy your blog and I hope you continue to do what you do. Shining the light on the many problems of this state is important. Unfortunately, I don't know if it's enough. Regardless, thank you, Stefan.
No. The republicans should pay for the millions that they have cost the state in a baseless election contest as well as several million the democrats spent defending the baseless lawsuit.
Posted by: Erik on June 9, 2005 01:08 AMThe money was paid to purchase a hand recount, not a law suit.
With more than 1600 illegal votes, it is the results of the hand recount which were baseless.
The certifying of the result in direct violation of the law, by the willful acts of Fells, Way, and Logan etc. means that the voters and tax payers, including me, will repay the Democats ( Stalinist socalists) out of the mouths of our children, the money for their so-called recount.
We and the poor, low income, single parent house holds, indigent etc. will also pay for the 9 cents per gallon tax on gasoline, because you Dems really care about the poor.
We, who also passed prop 601, will also pay the other "emergency" taxes (in direct violation of the actual 601) which have been adopted by the legislature.
Having defrauded me of my vote, as a genuine registered voter, you will defraud my family, rape my budget, and rob me of my hard work to pay for your pretend recount.
I can be thankful that I still have a piece of bread, until all the businesses leave this state ( in the East for Idaho).
The lawsuit was not baseless, The depositions showed what went on in KC. What the lawsuit showed is that the result was baseless. We, the hard working slubs, get to pay for it.
What a trial for the Dems, no interest on the money.
Posted by: tomasm on June 9, 2005 02:07 AMMiriam, you have my utmost respect. Being a mom is the toughest and greatest job in the world. Being a single mom is the toughest, greatest, and most impossible job in the world. Bless your heart.
Posted by: Danny on June 9, 2005 05:17 AMToo bad republicans only care about the taxpayer money when it ISN'T going to republicans. Maybe this country wouldn't be in so much debt right now under the strain of Baby Bush's largest budget deficit in history.
Posted by: Scott on June 9, 2005 05:41 AMWe would love nothing better than a reason from you to publicly rehash the hash about how this election was conducted. PUULLLEEEAAASSSEEEE do it Erik.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on June 9, 2005 05:59 AMYour unbelievable ignorance. Your willingness to deny justice. What's in it for you? Are you leaches sucking out the life blood of the taxpayers? Do you contribute anything to our society other than what ends up at the waste treatment plant? I would be shocked to find out you did anything. Don't bother trying to claim anything on this blog (or anywhere), I wouldn't believe you. You are lying sacks of shit anyway. I know that my next statement will just justify your belief that anybody other than a lefty is mean spirited. What a joke! Die scumbags Die.
Posted by: REBEL on June 9, 2005 06:16 AMAccording to Judge Bridges, the courts must decide according to strict reading of Washington State Statute, common sense need not apply. It is my understanding that the section under which Democrats requested the third recount does not provide for interest or any other additional amounts to be returned with the monies held in escrow. Washington State should not pay out a dime more than the amount originally deposited. Any minimal interest the State received should be used to offset their administrative costs of the third recount. That should the legal and sensible way to handle it, but this is Washington, the courts will probably award the Dems 15% interest.
I recently received a refund of a deposit being held by my cell phone company, since they do this all the time, I assume they know the law on such matters. I received the exact amount that had been held over a year. I did not receive interest for the original year, nor the additional four months my money was in escrow.
Posted by: dl on June 9, 2005 06:30 AMAfter the last legislative session it is more than painfully obvious that the Dems could care less about the poor taxpayer as long as the Dems achieve their agenda.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on June 9, 2005 06:32 AMI’m going to “report for duty” in Europe for a few weeks. Ha, ha, ha, Please have our check ready when we return. What’s that? Oh yes dear, I’m getting off the computer now.
I’m coming dear...Oh Teresa honey, can I get my next months allowance early? I think I can pay you back with interest next month.
There is a way (that can be stopped)the ACLU uses to re-coop their 'expenses' (after suing an innocent person/company) from (are you listening!?)
the US treasury!
Do they blink and eye before taking OUR money to sue us!? NO!!
Read everything to do with 'new' legislation. (Get Involved!)
Contact your representatives to be sure they know how YOU will be voting on the issues.
POWER TO THE PEOPLE!
Communism - A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, authoritarian ('Rats) party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people (at least those that are moonbats).
12% interest, sounds, looks, and smells like a redistribution of our wealth to the authoratarian party holding power.
Posted by: cowboy on June 9, 2005 07:17 AMSame thing he is always smoking, and probably trying to get legalized, CRACK!!!!!!
Posted by: cowboy on June 9, 2005 07:21 AMIf she was worth two bits!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: cowboy on June 9, 2005 07:23 AM
Dear John Kerry and Teresa Heinz Kerry, That was hilarious!
Posted by: cc on June 9, 2005 07:26 AMIt took chutzpah to submit afffidavits from felons on how they illegally voted.
It took chutzpah to use KCE screw-ups as justification for a new building.
It took chutzpah to pass a record gas tax hike during times of near record gas prices
It took chutzpah to pass a record gas tax hike to pay exclusively for Seattle projects with no project definition
It took chutzpah to raise taxes when state and local governments are recieving a huge windfall from property taxes due to towering real estate valuations.
etc., etc.
Posted by: Dogbert on June 9, 2005 07:37 AMThere is a definate deficit here and it is not of money!
Posted by: GS on June 9, 2005 07:51 AMTo the people of the State of Washington who OWE ME MONEY PLUS 12% I say.....
FU*K YOU
Yes dear, coming, I’m getting off the computer now.
Well, I have to go.
What would have normally been considered an expensive and risky "gamble" to most didn't seem to concern them.
Almost makes you wonder if King Ron was asked to assure that the precious money would be safe. Now I can understand why he made bank analogies. By being the last to report their numbers, King County made sure that they were in complete control of the final results of the election.
And I thought Fraudoire was suspiciously confident when she came out and said she would accept the results of the third count and urged Dino Rossi to do the same. Almost as if she knew something. Hmmm...
Erik, Scott: I have some more kool-aid for you to drink, and thanks to you RINOs for voting for my tax hike. I couldn't have done it to the people without you. Talk about chutzpah! I will campaign for each and everyone of you.
Chris Chutzpah the Tax Queen
Posted by: Christine aka "just Chris" on June 9, 2005 08:20 AMWe have to focus the entire state on the Socialist Workers' Paradise that is King County. Getting rid of Sims is the first step.
Posted by: steve_dog on June 9, 2005 08:21 AMIt's amusing that in November nary a syllable about transparency or due process was to be heard from these quarters. The party line was that Christine Gregoire needed to "just get over it" and move on. When she exercised her statutory right to conduct a hand recount she was called a sore loser. (By the way, a whole lot less than $730,000 could have been spent if Gregoire opted to cherry-pick just the counties that supported her heavily, but she chose to pony up the full amount and pay for a complete statewide recount.)
After the election was certified the $730K spent to exercise Gregoire's legal right was held in hock for months while the Democrats were forced to spend another $2 million to defend what's been shown to be an utterly frivolous lawsuit. (I know y'all will continue to whine about the lawsuit, but the results speak for themselves. DR's explaining his failure to appeal by whining about the Supreme Court's "political makeup" is just another example of blaming the ref when you can't win on the field.)
I hope you have a good cheese to go with that whine, because you certainly won't get much else from anyone with a lick of sense.
"baseless election contest"
... When in fact the court records does show that the number of number of illegal votes was at least ten times the margin of error.
If you can ignore shenanigans like that, I have to conclude you're not interested in knowing who the people actually voted for.
Posted by: Bostonian on June 9, 2005 08:50 AMEnough Said....
Posted by: Chris on June 9, 2005 08:52 AMIn November, nobody knew the things we knew now, about votes from dead people, felons, and people who already voted once. It took a lot of hard work to dig those facts out.
By all means, though, come back here and keeping reminding us how the Left really feels about voter fraud.
Posted by: Bostonian on June 9, 2005 08:55 AMThe Dem's were not FORCED to Defend themselves in the lawsuit....
If it was as frivioulus as you say, why didn't they just let the Counties do the defending? It would have saved them a few Million.
No Sympathy from this Lewis County Taxpayer...Let King County Pay the Interest, it was their screwup, and coverup.
Posted by: Chris on June 9, 2005 09:02 AMToo bad the 'rats like you weren't forced to spend 200 million and would have had to go into bankrupcy. course then you would have just mooched more off us poor folk for that and all of your other socialist crap.
apparently you didn't hear the judges decision very clearly like most of your moonbat butt buddies. He did not say anything about a frivolous lawsuit, just that there was no way to prove who the 1600++ ILLEGAL votes were for. Course you moonbats don't care that there were 1600++ ILLEGAL votes. You were probably out there stuffing boxes, signing up dead folks, and registering homeless folks, so that you could fill out their ballots for Washingtons FRAUD of a Governor!!!!!!!
Posted by: cowboy on June 9, 2005 09:04 AMDon't get me wrong. I certainly don't approve of electoral fraud or incompetence, and think it's unfair to suggest that anyone involved in this debate does.
There has been absolutely NO demonstration of "fraud" in this election. The debate over this election HAS revealed a good amount of incompetence and bureaucratic error. I hope (as I trust we all do) that these errors are vigorously addressed and corrected as soon as possible. I also hope that the ridiculous system of restoring one's voting rights following a felony conviction is reformed, as Sam Reed called for recently.
But please don't imply that Gregoire supporters are crooks, frauds or cheats. That claim has been decisively resolved in a court of law, which is the way we do things in a democratic society. Unless you have a better alternative to our present constitutional system, I would respectfully suggest a bit of humility might be in order.
Posted by: bartelby on June 9, 2005 09:08 AMThey are lucky to be getting there money back at all.
Posted by: Chris on June 9, 2005 09:12 AMThere were 1678 illegal votes. What do you call that?
I call that fraud.
Election officials falsified numbers. What do you call that?
I call that fraud, too.
***
Maybe you have some other definition of fraud.
My dictionary defines fraud thus: "A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain." Note the word DELIBERATELY. People do things erroneously, even illegally, all the time. That does not make them fraudulent.
Most of the "felon voters," for instance, had absolutely no idea that their rights to vote had not been restored. There was certainly a failure of the system to properly advise defendants of the laws and procedures to restore their voting rights. Many of these voters had in fact fulfilled the terms of their sentences but not had a certificate of discharge entered due to bureaucratic snafus.
If anyone DELIBERATELY violated the law they should certainly be prosecuted. I'm not aware of any such cases.
Posted by: bartelby on June 9, 2005 09:39 AM
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse...Any felon that cast a ballot, without having his/her rights restored commited a crime....No Excuses...It's the Law...
Try not paying your taxes on time and see how far it gets you when you say to the foreclosure court that "I didnt know I had to pay my taxes or you would take my property"...."you(the court) didnt tell me" "waa, waa, waa".....
It's called personal responsibilty, and frankly if i was a felon, I would WANT to know, and make it my business to find out what my restrictions where. It is part of being a Citizen....
These Felon's disenfranchised ME and my Vote. They stole my LEGAL VOTE.... Doesn't that bother you just a little bit? Do you really believe that 600-900 felon's in this state are all that stupid. Next you will try and convince me that they are all Packing a 44 mag, because they DIDN'T know. It is not our responsibility to tell them, it is theirs.
And just how many of those felon's are going to stand up and SAY "I KNEW I couldn't vote, but did anyway". I don't think that would be a wise choice on their part considering their past conviction/s.
Posted by: Chris on June 9, 2005 09:55 AMAre you to tell me you are unaware of the falsified documents 'DELIBERATELY' created in KC?
Posted by: Steve B on June 9, 2005 09:59 AMThe falsification was fraud, no ifs, ands, or buts. No, it was not done to secure Gregiore's governership, but to cover their sorry rear-ends from being exposed for doing sloppy job handling their duties and thus to keep them from being fired. But that doesn't make it any less of a fraud. Fraud to cover your own rear end because you screwed up big time is still fraud.
Posted by: Mike H on June 9, 2005 10:03 AMOthers have pointed out that ignorance of the law is no excuse. (I thought everyone over ten realized that point of law!)
Putting that aside, election officials knowingly and deliberately falsified reports.
And where do you think the voterless ballots came from? Who created them? Do you think that was an "accident"?
You can call all these shenanigans whatever you like, but the bottom line is that you don't find them serious.
In that, you're in a minority.
Posted by: Bostonian on June 9, 2005 10:10 AMThen you weren't paying attention to the trial. King County elections violated a baker's dozen of RCWs and WACs. Nicole Way admitted under oath she falsified the reconcilliation reports.
We'll all eagerly await your calls for her punishment.
Posted by: steve_dog on June 9, 2005 10:12 AMChris:
I didn't say ignorance of the law was an EXCUSE, I said that an act made in ignorance is very different from a DELIBERATE, FRAUDULENT act. (Read preceding thread.) That said, the bureaucratic procedures on this issue are very murky. Many of the felons who voted were even told by the courts and Department of Corrections staff that they were ELIGIBLE to vote (ignorance of fact, not law, on the part of state employees who advised the felons). One silver lining of this dispute is that many of these problems have been illuminated and will, with luck, be addressed.
Another lesson learned: If you're going to loosely throw around terms like "fraud," you better understand what they mean and be prepared to back your hyperbole up with facts. The Rs simply cannot do that here.
The court did resolve that there were illegal votes.
Many people have pointed out that it is actually physcially impossible to know for a certainty where the illegal votes went, which means that the law itself provides no recourse against illegal votes. The law was written by the same legislature that has defied public will again and again in WA.
So much for democracy.
Posted by: Bostonian on June 9, 2005 10:18 AMSteve_Dog: I don't fancy myself the legal expert that so many others here seem to, but if you're so confident of your assertions, you should ask Republican King County Prosecuting Attorney Norm Maleng what he thinks about the issue.
Posted by: bartelby on June 9, 2005 10:23 AMMost of us don't think that all democrats or Gregoire supporters are crooked.
Most of us DO believe that King County is crooked AND dishonest. I have nothing but contempt for them and our Seattle media Sims apologists (that would be you, Dave Ross).
Posted by: steve_dog on June 9, 2005 10:24 AMWe are not loosely throwing the word "fraud" around. We mean it, and we're serious and we're very angry about it.
I would like to see jail time for these clowns.
Posted by: Bostonian on June 9, 2005 10:25 AMStefan posted all the WACs they violated. Norm Maleng is one of the King County cronies and he won't lift a finger to prosecute anyone. Why should he?
Posted by: steve_dog on June 9, 2005 10:30 AMWhy the Republican King County Prosecuting Attorney? This is not a R/D thing (I would hope). It is to do with people working an election not doing their job and knowingly doing it wrong. Everyone one should be concerned. The only reason I can think of why you would say that is because you think a D would let it go as the end justifies the means.
Posted by: fred on June 9, 2005 10:31 AMThe election was stolen by small time democrat operatives in King county.
I for one won’t forget it.
First, as I recall, she ranted and raved and carried on after losing TWICE, but as soon as she got a count to go her way (after getting as many additional votes added as she could manage), then it's time to stop and the R's are just 'sore losers' since they're not happy with it. I also don't believe that she had any choice about 'cherrypicking'. It was all or nothing. I might be incorrect about that, but isn't that part of the rulings that came out of florida?
bartelby -
'After the election was certified the $730K spent to exercise Gregoire's legal right was held in hock for months while the Democrats were forced to spend another $2 million to defend what's been shown to be an utterly frivolous lawsuit. '
So what? Nobody ever said they shouldn't get their money back, they knew that they would as soon as they won the election. The particular load of garbage that is sticking in everybody's craw is the demand for 12%. Heck, I want to get 12% back on MY money!!! What POSSIBLE reason could they have to justify getting ANY interest on that money? This is not a bank, this was not a business or financial transaction of any kind! If they lost the money was gone, if they won, they get it back. I don't recall anything in the law about interest rates FAR above anything available in the private sector.
Beyond even that, how much of the DNC capital do you thing $750,000 represents? I somehow seriously doubt that either that money, or the two million they alledgedly spent on the trial represents a significant portion of the DNC's available funds, so what does that make this demand for interest? Good way to look out for the 'common man' there.
Posted by: Disgruntled IT guy on June 9, 2005 10:35 AMUnder oath, Nicole Way testified that she put numbers into that report that she knew to be wrong.
Why are you deconstructing this? It's really quite simple.
***
And again, you continue to demonstrate that the Left does not take these issues seriously.
PR move that is brilliant.
Posted by: Sailor Republica on June 9, 2005 10:37 AMOn the contrary, the election was stolen by BIG TIME democrats in King County. Sims just has "plausible deniability".
Posted by: steve_dog on June 9, 2005 10:38 AMYou want to be paid interest from the State. Now, that will be real popular.
You should sue the Rossi camp if it is so frivolous. But didn't Rossi follow the law as did Gregoire for the second recount. The rules are in place.
I agree with the cynic. Keep up the attack on the State.
Posted by: swatter on June 9, 2005 10:41 AMI think everyone agrees that illegal votes were cast, as they doubtless are in virtually every election. Everyone should work to minimize, if not eliminate, this in the future. But to repeat, illegal votes do not equal fraudulent votes. There was no deliberate or systematic effort to steal the election -- just a lot of individual screw-ups that have always been there to some degre or another but were only illuminated because of the high level of scrutiny following a very close election.
I don't doubt that you are angry, as are a lot of other people throwing vulgar language about the right wing echo chamber. That and two bucks will buy you a cup of coffee. What you seem to lack, however, are concrete facts to back up your assertions in a court of law. Republicans head the offices of KC Prosecutor, WA Attorney General and U.S. Attorney's Office. Don't you think action would be taken if there were any genuine fraud? Or are Maleng, McKenna and McKay all part of the sinister conspiracy as well?
In order to prosecute someone for voter fraud, it is necessary to *know* who the perpetrator is. We do not know that for the vast majority of the 1678 illegal votes.
I most certainly hope and expect that the few perpetrators we do know about do get taken to court; don't you?
Likewise, the KC election officials who have already testified to falsifying reports should be prosecuted, unless they've already got immunity for some reason. If they're not, something (else) is deeply wrong in WA.
Posted by: Bostonian on June 9, 2005 10:52 AMYou seem pretty certain about the definition of "fraud." Would you explain the difference between "active fraud" and "constructive fraud" please?
I don't see how any reasonable person could construe this kind of act as "an accident", or "human error". Signing your name to a document attesting to it's accuracy when you admit knowing that it was false is an act requiring volition (making a choice of your own free will) and intent (having a purpose). It can't be an accident, unless your hand slipped and you somehow signed your exact signature as a result of the slip, which is a bit of a stretch, even for 'Rat lawyers to argue.
Since it involved an election document, one can esaily connect the dots and conclude what the intent was: to lend credibility to an election whose outcome was, at best, indeterminate, or, at worst, fraudlent. I don't know, but to a simple, honest person like me, that seems to be perpetrating a fraud on the public.
Posted by: Interested Observer on June 9, 2005 11:05 AMKC did not just have a 'small number of errors that occur during each election'. They had 1600+ known ballots that were cast illegally. Many of those ballots had no know voter attached to them.
I don't see why it's so hard to imagine a person expecting accuracy in an election count. Elections are big surprises, we know when they are comming. Banks process these kinds of numbers of transactions on a daily basis. How long do you think a bank would stay in business if they had even 100 errors in money transactions a day. Not only would they lose business from unhappy customers they would probably end up with several people sent to jail.
Posted by: Steve B on June 9, 2005 11:13 AMMicajah, this is a great point. I read your blog a bit earlier and would have posted a comment there if I could have. I would love to see him get called on this next time he is interviewed by one of the local radio hosts.
Mark
Posted by: Mark K on June 9, 2005 11:16 AMBostonian: King and other counties have stricken hundreds of voter who were improperly registered due to prior felony convictions. It would be easy enough to compare such names with the 2004 voter rolls if prosecutors thought there were real cases to be made.
GMT: I'm no legal authority, so will decline your invitation to parse language. You should consult Norm Maleng or the prosecuting attorneys of the other 38 Washington counties who have declined to prosecute anyone for fraud.
Posted by: bartelby on June 9, 2005 11:16 AMJust a thought, since we're all waxing moralistic here.
Posted by: Northern Coho on June 9, 2005 11:16 AMI don't know whether the D's are entitled to interest here, but let's understand the basic facts before we start crying crocodile tears and calling for beheadings over the many missed opportunities caused by the state possibly having to pay $30,000 in interest. First, the D's have an absolute right, under state law to return of the $730,000 that they paid. That's been known since day one. Second, by law the standard "prejudgment interest" rate is 12% in Washington. Third, the D's claim that the SoS was wrong not to refund the 730K immediately upon the recount results being certified, and showing Gregoire's victory.
Now, I don't know how all of this will be sorted out, and maybe at the end of the day the D's aren't entitled to interest -- either because the SoS had to hold on to the D's money or because the statute doesn't allow interest. But win or lose, they have a reasonable argument under the law and they're pressing that. (In that regard, keep in mind that just because it's the state involved, there's no automatic right for the state to hold on to the D's money forever, interest free. And whether your cell phone contract or some such thing provides or doesn't provide for interest is the by-product of a specific contract that specifies whether interest is payable. There's no contract here that says the D's give up their right to interest on this money if it wasn't timely returned.)
Let's assume for a second that the D's are wrong in asking for interest. Now, if anyone wants to claim that those who ask for things they're not entitled to under state law should pay dearly for the anguish and costs that they incur on behalf of everyone in the state, please just say so and we'd be happy to send the bill. Anybody got Dale Foreman's (or Dino Rossi's) address handy?
Posted by: Bluebeard on June 9, 2005 11:29 AMAnd the final kicker is that the loser non-payer only had to pay reasonable attorney fees, which was substantially less than my attorney's fees. My attorney, BTW, was not a gouger like the R and D attorneys. Probably, a more accurate description would be he wasn't in the Seattle ivory towers charging $450/hour for minor business legalese.
12%? Get it from Rossi if you want. SOS (ooh, the initials have so many connotations) kept the money in case the legal challenge was done. Doesn't anyone think it prudent to do so?
Posted by: swatter on June 9, 2005 11:32 AMDon't you think you are displaying situational ethics just a tad?
Posted by: Northern Coho on June 9, 2005 11:35 AMMonths and months ago, Rep. Lantz told me that she'd recommended the Democrats forgo the refund entirely. If the Democrats were really smart, they'd do just that. Pushing to get the money back with interest is just going to make them look like a bunch of arrogant jerks and may hurt them more than the election contest itself did.
Posted by: Nathan Azinger on June 9, 2005 11:35 AMI don't want to go to a bank where 12% of $730,000 is $30,000.
Posted by: Steve B on June 9, 2005 11:38 AMThat depends on whether you are depositing or borrowing. If the prevailing interest rate is 12%, I'll take that loan any day.
Posted by: Dogbert on June 9, 2005 11:41 AMAs for the 'anguish and costs' I've heard from several people say that Rossi 'put us through' with the court challenge, put a sock DEEP in it. If the situation were the same but Rossi had won instead of that 'other' person currently in the governors mansion, then I would be DEAF from all the power whining going on from the liberal left. "Stolen elections! Right wing Conspiricy! Waaaaa!"
Considering we still hear about the 'stolen' 2000 election where Gore lost every count I would hate to see what would have happend if CG won the first two, lost the third, and then lost the challenge.
Posted by: Steve B on June 9, 2005 11:46 AMIf the Democrats' core voters are not deeply concerned with illegal voting and an election machine that tolerates it, then I don't see why I should ever vote for a Democrat again.
With the WOT, I changed my lifelong voting habits. There is no way I am changing them back now. I do not feel that Democrats believe in the voters.
Posted by: Bostonian on June 9, 2005 11:50 AMI'm glad you guys aren't responsible for doing any detail checking for me, or figuring out interest for me either.
1. The article linked by Stefan says that the difference between what the Dems have asked for and the 2% offered by the SoS is $30,400. Look it up.
2. You math geniuses apparently think that the right way to calculate this is to apply a 12% ANNUAL interest rate to a period of less than a full year. Of course, that's dead wrong. It's been at most half a year -- and I suspect from the reported numbers that the Dems are actually only asking for about five months (giving the SoS something like 30 days to refund the 730K, and considering interest applicable only during the additional time after that 30 day period).
Interest 101 class for Dogbert and Steve B. is hereby concluded. Any questions?
ANNUAL PERCENTAGE RATE 12%
MONTHLY PERIIDIC RATE 1%
PRINCIPLE BALANCE $730,000
Take the Principle balance X the MPR of 1%. The “loan” from Kerry accrues $7300 per month.
7300 x 6 months =$43,800
As a mortgage banker, I would say a client paying 12% interest on this sum is in the very low depths of the sub-prime market. Is this a reflection of the State’s credit rating or that of the democrat party?
John Kerry is a loan shark!!!!!!!!
As stated in my earlier post, the 12% rate that the D's have asked for comes from a state law that ordinarily applies to suits for payment of money. I'm not claiming that it certainly applies here, but it's hardly "outrageous!" to say that it should.
As for the calculations, look at my last post and let me put a fine point on it here. Five months of interest at 12% for $730,000 is almost exactly $30,400 more than what 2% would yield for the same period. Simple stuff, really.
Posted by: Bluebeard on June 9, 2005 12:10 PMI suspect that a majority of R's and I's would prefer an ethical course of action to overcome the problems we face. I also suspect that there are a goodly number of D's that recognize the unfairness that took place. A number of them would vote R to help resolve the problems if they recognized the R's put up a worthy candidate and put in place an ethical and workable strategy to legitimately elect a replacement for Gregoire.
Anyone have any ideas how the few of us who are willing to roll up our sleeves, rather than just blow smoke, can take action to solve the dilemma we face? I would work on an ethical plan of action that has broad appeal combined with a possiblity of success. The emphasis is on ethical. I'm not interested in the 'let's do fraud because it worked for them' approach.
Posted by: Curtis T. Mohr on June 9, 2005 12:17 PM
I guess we now know how that number came to be... :-)
Is paying Kerry back another spending emergency?
Is it wrong to withhold the payment until the election is decided? Where does it stipulate that? If they did have the right to have the money back do you honestly feel they should be getting 12% from the taxpayers that can get maybe 0.5% The 12% that is in the law is the maximum.
I do not think there is any situational ethics here about this, other than it is alright for election officials to make lots of errors with no consequence, but the SOS holding the money incorrectly there needs to be the high 12% interest paid.
Posted by: fred on June 9, 2005 12:45 PMWould make any mafia boss proud to have thought of this racket.
Posted by: BananaLand(aka Iguana) on June 9, 2005 01:21 PMYou didn't say $30,000 was the difference between 2% and 12% over the 5-6 months. You said "the D's request for $30,000 in interest on the 730K"
I am fully aware the difference between 12% and a 12% apr. A 12% apr over 5 months on 730K is going to give you $36,500 and over 6 months $43,800. Thats assuming no compounding of interest (compounding tacks on roughly another grand to each number). As I assumed, as somebody trying to defend this ridiculous crap, you simply saw the number on the linked site and quoted it out of context rather than actually try to look at the reality of the situation. Then when called on it you went back and corrected yourself by bringing in the context of the other article.
Posted by: Steve B on June 9, 2005 01:23 PMAnd with Michael, it is not sessual...yer ignorant...where's my 'blanket"?
Posted by: all_righty_then on June 9, 2005 01:49 PMYou're right that the total amount the Dems are seeking is about $36,000 rather than the about $30,000 I mentioned. I was only describing what the Ds want over and above what the SoS has already offerred -- just as the article did. Anybody who read the article and gave a moment's thought to this beyond multiplying 12% times 730K would understand.
I had my numbers right. Now, as for you....you thought you could take a cheap shot by saying, "Just wondering where Bluebeard took math classes. I don't want to go to a bank where 12% of $730,000 is $30,000."
Steve, as you've now been told, the question was never whether "12% of $730,000 is $30,000." So you were arguing the entirely WRONG question, and thought you could be insulting about it by questioning where I took my "math classes." The insult came back to bite you, though....too bad.
Posted by: Bluebeard on June 9, 2005 02:02 PM"Under oath, Nicole Way testified that she put numbers into that report that she knew to be wrong."
And the response:
I don't see how any reasonable person could construe this kind of act as "an accident", or "human error". Entering known false data and/or signing your name to a document attesting to it's accuracy when you admit knowing that it was false is an act requiring volition (making a choice of your own free will) and intent (having a purpose). It can't be an accident, unless your hand slipped and you somehow signed your exact signature as a result of the slip, which is a bit of a stretch, even for 'Rat lawyers to argue.
Since it involved an election document, one can esaily connect the dots and conclude what the intent was: to lend credibility to an election whose outcome was, at best, indeterminate, or, at worst, fraudlent. I don't know, but to a simple, honest person like me, that seems to be perpetrating a fraud on the public.
Posted by: Interested Observer on June 9, 2005 02:04 PMYour first statement was still that the interest the D's were asking for amounted to $30,000, which is false. It's there for anybody to look at.
Notice that I never said they were asking for $87,600, which is what a years worth of non-compounded 12% interest would be. You simply assumed I meant the full 12% * $730K.
Posted by: Steve B on June 9, 2005 02:23 PMI guess it just depends on what your definition if "is" is when you say "I don't want to go to a bank where 12% of $730,000 IS $30,000."
I guess in the new math of Steve, I can say that "10% of 100 IS 5," since in his world I could mean 1/2 or 5/12 of that....
Ha ha. And you probably criticized Clinton for his definition of "is"!
Posted by: Bluebeard on June 9, 2005 04:02 PMI AM REPORTING FOR DUTY…… COLLECTION DUTY!!!! Ha, ha, ha, ….
12% interest is what you back woods westerners should pay an Ivy League guy for straightening out your election mess. What has been going on in your provincial King County is nothing we have not been doing all along in the cities of our great country.
Look, if you can’t beat us by 100k votes in any State, give it up. As we say in Boston, it’s not who votes, its how the votes are counted!..Ha, ha, ha,!!!’
Sorry honey, I will be off the computer in just a minute, I’ll be able to talk to your “Men are Satin” gals group in just a sec. Man….if It weren’t for my allowance, I Would be walking on the wild side around here. I am a US Senator damn it!!! She is in charge of …Condiments!!! ha, ha, ha,
HEY WASHINGTON…f**K YOU…PAY ME!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: The Senator on June 9, 2005 04:15 PM12% interest - Where does the poor taxpayer in this State (btw, ran by Dem's the past 20 years) find an interest rate that good, even if they had money to invest/save?
Posted by: Chris on June 9, 2005 04:22 PMIf it was held illegally, then they should SUE. As a taxpayer, i am used to being screwed by the Dems.....Been going on for 20 years now.....
I am sure they need their money now though, and every extra penny they can get since they just got slapped with a $187,500 fine for failure to disclose....
I bet the disclosure papers were misplaced with the 90+ Never Counted LEGAL Ballots that were at MBOS.... Ask Dean Logan, he probalby help Prepare the disclosure, and we all know how good he is at covering up (oops did i type that out loud)... I can see the Headlines now....."King County Elections Finds WSDCC's disclosure, all fines waived and only a HONEST MISTAKE was made"
Posted by: Chris on June 9, 2005 07:00 PMFrom http://www.secstate.wa.gov/office/osos_news.aspx?i=SPlmpeBt1xLxpksVqw%2ft9w%3d%3d:
If the recount, however, changes the result of the election, the requesting party is entitled to a refund of the deposit and is not responsible for any recount costs.
If you don't like it Shark take it up with Sam Reed, your Republican Secretary of State.
Posted by: Daniel K on June 9, 2005 09:38 PMNothing but How-weard Dean politics everywhere you turn...no shame in the shameful demo. party.
this from the party known for "fighting for the underclass" and passing usury laws against "greedy corporate lenders;"
I guess broken kneecaps come in all party colors--red AND blue;
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on June 10, 2005 12:21 AMWhat a tremendously good thing that a Delay think-a-like isn't governor of our state. We should take a moment and celebrate this result...the Rossi/Delay revelation would have our state shuddering.
Posted by: Tom Purcess on June 10, 2005 01:24 PMI think now that the Democrats can't do business on a legitimate level(failure to disclose), the state should withhold the $730,000 until they pay their fine....Actually the fine should have an interest rate of 12% from the time it was first enforced 2 years ago......
Dino didnt blame anybody, he was prudent in the knowledge that he doubted the Supremes would overturn bridges decision. If he had pursued the appeal, you and your Dem buddies would have screamed to high heaven......
Be grateful it is over and that the business of running this state can go on (and the raping of the common taxpayer can continue with the Democrat rule).
Posted by: Chris on June 10, 2005 04:44 PM